Saturday, November 29, 2014

Typically, campaign consultants and local activists talk about the low information voters in an election as though they are stupid or fundamentally ignorant.

Parody posters like the image above give the impression that voters are vastly stupid or ignorant about what is going in the world. Surveys portrayed like the one below may support this claim:

Or maybe you've heard comments like this from citizens who don't pay attention:

The truth is that low information voters possess a great degree, a wide array of information, but not about politics.

At a recent celebration for a winning candidate, I met with a number of enthusiastic partisans. Hardly what one would call "low-information" voters.

Yet one of them acknowledged to me her ignorance about the term of a state assemblyman (do you know the answer?)

Another individual, the candidate who the election, whose victory we were celebrating, acknowledged his lack of knowledge about the individuals who held his office prior to him.

No one would suggest that these persons were stupid. Not at all.

No one would call them ignorant. No one would contend that they do not care about their country, or about their leaders' decisions.

Yet they did not know this basic information.

An auto mechanic who owns his own business told me that he had no idea who to vote for in the city council elections that year. No idea.

How could he? There were more than ten candidates, and few seats open to fill. The City of Torrance was facing a comprehensive shift in leadership, followed by top-ranking retirements.

This mechanic was not a stupid man at all, nor would anyone conclude that he was callous or uncaring. There was simply not enough time for him to invest in learning about so many issues.

Then there is the low-rider effect. One voter by himself cannot make a difference. This mentality multiplied many times over creates the low-voter turnout which pundits and social critics decry.

Critics like President John F. Kennedy:
﻿

JFK's take on low-information voters

Is it really true, thought, that the ignorance of one voter will end, or rather upend our democracy? To the Framers, that question was immaterial. The House of Representatives was the popular chamber, directly elected and thus directly accountable to the people. The US Senate would represent the states and the state legislatures would elect their representatives.

One voter without information on candidates and initiatives will not destroy or liberities. The widespread assumption that "My vote doesn't matter" will, and the ambitious willingness of interest groups to fill in that void can work to our advantage or against our liberties.

What about Ronald Reagan? What were his thoughts about the setbacks from uninformed, or rather misinformed voters?

﻿

To know nothing is bad, but to know the wrong things as if true is worse. Liberals have grand, large-scale ideas, and they are bad ones. No matter how good they may sound, they turn out nothing but worse for use.

What are the consequences for people who take pride in remaining low-info?

Political decisions affect you and me, whether we like it or not. What goes on in City Hall does not stay there. Are you paying more for your food? Consider the recent minimum wage increases forced on businesses, or the red tape which has made it more difficult for working men to gain gainful employment. Bad policies downtown trickle down to your suburbs, too.

Crime and corruption become the norm, and no matter how much the political attuned and active may have warned, the low-information voter chose not to care.

This is not a fate which anyone should want, nor sit idly by and wait to happen.

To treat the low-information voter as a complete fool, however, is not just immoral, but false.

From the examples I related above, we should realized that American citizens all over have their own particular knowledge base, whether in their careers or other diverse interests, which does not include politics.

Washington Post columnist George Will argued that low-information voters operate from an acceptable rationale, in that their one vote does not make a difference. This fact is inescapable.

How then do we rectify this problem? Voters need to feel connected and competent that their involvement makes a difference. As long as I feel that my vote is part of a larger movement to get something accomplished, not only am I more likely to vote, but I will encourage others to do the same.

For the stay-at-home Mom, or the busy professional, for the overwhelmed business owner or the unemployed parent, the present frustrations to their well-being take great precedent over political concerns, and therefore we should not be surprised if they are low-information voters.

While conservative insurgents refocus on the Republican Party goals of limited government and individual liberty, libertarian activists in the United Kingdom have begun breaking away from the Conservative Party to form their own political group, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP. The parliamentary system allows minor parties to exert majority influence, because the UK's unitary system dispenses with the winner-take-all aspect of federalized elections.

Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP, has declared his intentions of rallying the widespread, yet disparate sentiment of Britons who resent European bureaucratization, the diminution of Westminster's authority (the seat for the House of Commons), and the rising immigration numbers which pose a threat to the country's unifying culture as well as national security.

Does anyone find this political trend reminiscent as well as troubling? In the United States, individual citizens fear the increased centralization of political authority and material access to Washington, along with an unceasing tide of illegal immigration, aided and abetted by a non-governing President in the nation's capital.

Much like the Republican Party's Tea Party coalition, established critics never believed that UKIP would gain much influence in the UK, let alone win any seats. However, in the past few months, two Conservative members of parliament, Douglas Carswell and Mike Reckless, have resigned their seats to join UKIP, then won back their seats in Parliament. More Conservatives are waiting in the wings, mulling the opportunities (or setbacks) should they choose to defect to UKIP, as well.

Confident that his will peel off support from Labor as well as Conservative constituencies to win a majority in 2015, Farage is pressing forward for an initiative out of Westminster which will allow British residents to determine whether they stay in the European Common Market, or leave.

Our policy is that we like Europe, but not the European Union, this attempt to take away the individuality and democracy of nation states, to centralize everything in three big institutions: The European Commission, the European Council, and of course the European Corps.

Later in the interview, the reporter asked why the United State of Europe could not exist, like the United States of America. Praising the USA, Farage explained the incapability of a federalized system of European states under one government:

The difference with America is that, when America was set up, people left their homes, in Europe, went to the states, started with a blanket sheet of paper, and had the intention of forming very quickly a country.
That's one way to put it. Europeans from different countries wanted to start over, find a new country, where the tides of peerage an prestige would not limit their opportunities to improve their fortunes.And they did it. They had some brilliant people. They wrote a very good constitution, and on they went.
Thanks, Mr. Farage! Cheers! To this day, the United States is one of few countries still operating under its original Constitution, and the charter has held up remarkably well, in spite of civil wars, insurgencies, world wars, and domestic troubles. Remaining the supreme standard of limited government in service of individual liberty, the United States Constitution retains its admirers throughout the world.

Now the interesting thing is, it took them one hundred years after forming a country to form a proper monetary union. In Europe, we've tried it to the other way round.
Interesting insight. An economic union is meaningless, useless without a common national identity, and unified political culture, which Farage explains:

In Europe, there is no such thing as a European demos. There is no such thing as a real sense of European identity.
Yet in the United States, "American" is a distinct identity which unites individuals from California to the New York islands. A political culture based on the United States Constitution, rooted in English Common Law and legal precedent, the United States is bound to a Constitution, a charter of enumerated powers which expands power to the states, while preserving the individual, natural rights of the people.

Unfortunately for the American voters at this time, the current President does not have the same respect for the United States Constitution which UKIP leader Nigel Farage has. Perhaps in the next few years, America conservatives will learn a lesson from their British peers on the importance of individual liberty, no matter what the challenges, and the importance of fighting for those values, even at the risk of fracturing political unity in one group for a period of time to form a more perfect union.

Granted, the Daily Breeze, like many papers, is looking for populist candidates, who owe nothing to public sector unions or other special interests.

Yet Dominguez, another Democrat, is the last thing we need to see in Sacramento. Four Democratic state senators have been jailed, convicted, and /or sentenced in the last year, and one more Democrat is not going to change the culture of corruption in the state house.

An independent or a Republican would be the better choice for that reason alone. There is one Republican running for the office along with three Democrats.

The Daily Breeze should have endorsed James Spencer for state Senate District 35.

The residents of the district, which stretches from San Pedro north to Watts and Inglewood taking in Gardena, Carson, Hawthorne and parts of North Long Beach and Torrance, were given a bitter pill they didn’t deserve. Now they have an opportunity to right it by electing a representative who will show the strong ethics and integrity that Wright didn’t. They should vote for Democrat Louis Dominguez.
Why do they focus on this candidate? He was a Vietnam War Veteran, and he ran the Harbor Free Clinic. Democrats and Republicans do great things in the private sector, but what policies do they plan to advocate and advance on the voters' behalf?Dominguez, a Vietnam veteran who formerly ran the Harbor Free Clinic in San Pedro and worked decades ago for legislator Vincent Thomas, is an underdog in the race but he has the right approach.“I don’t just want to pass laws, but look at the laws that we have and see if they make sense,” he told the editorial board. That’s a refreshing and reasoned approach that Sacramento could use and one that Dominguez’s most formidable opponent, Assemblyman Isadore Hall, D-Compton, could learn from.
For the record, anyone who is a Democrat in a heavily Democratic district does not count as an underdog. That designation belongs to someone running a different party affiliation: James Spencer, the only Republican. Furthermore, there is nothing refreshing about looking at legislation to see if it makes sense. That is the point of view which every legislator should take when deciding what legislation to introduce, vote on, or reject.

Favored by the Democratic establishment, Hall, an African-American, is termed out this year. His shameless carriage of sponsored bills and political climbing gives residents the distinct impression that the Capitol comes before their own needs in a district that is a black power base. That’s a shame.

Inglewood Unified is currently under state receivership
Spencer is the only candidate talking about that.

One good point in this editorial: the writers expose career politician Assemblyman Isadore Hall. Has he ever run a business? Does he have a record worth running on? He served on the Compton Unified School Board, with what to show for it? The School district ended up under receivership a long time ago. Currently, Inglewood Unified is under state receivership, and Wiseburn Unified succeeded in breaking away from another corrupt school district, Centinela Valley Union High School District.

Of the candidates running for SD-35, Spencer is the only one who has talked about the failing schools, the corrupted school districts, and the need for jobs, working skills, training, and economic opportunitiesHis most high-profile legislation last year — a failed effort requiring condoms in porn movie shoots — didn’t do much to directly benefit those in his mostly low-income, largely Latino and black district.But most troubling is his questionable use of campaign funds.
Indeed, Hall has done nothing to help the residents of San Pedro, Carson, South Los Angeles, and the Hawthorne region. Did he even help with getting legislation passed so that Wiseburn would become a unified district free from Centinela? Where was he to end the waste and fraud which define Inglewood Unified fiscal and human resources mismanagement?

In 2012 he ran unopposed but spent those funds lavishly including, as the Sacramento Bee reported earlier this year, spending $12,000 at the Fairmont hotel in Hawaii during a Nov. 13 conference hosted by the Independent Voter Project, a nonprofit policy group funded in part by powerful business and labor interests. That group paid $2,300 for his accommodations, according to financial disclosure statements. And there’s more the Bee reported including spending at high-priced restaurants and bars that he said were used for strategy meetings.

Isadore Hall has $500,000 on hand. Where did he get all that money? Why is he spending taxpayer time and money in Hawaii, when his residents cannot go to a good school, find a good job, or feel safe in their homes and on their streets?

Senate District 35

Those funds might have been better been spent in small restaurants and locations in Compton or Watts, where businesses are struggling and the poverty rate is too high. But Hall’s response to questions about this were simply that he was transparent. Transparency is important, but it’s not enough to be promoted to the Senate, when what’s seen doesn’t look so good.Dominguez isn’t looking for partisan politics; instead he tries to focus on the right ideas. Among his priorities are public pension reform and increasing the profile of CalVet. If elected, his biggest challenge will be serving the disparate interests of the district, and he must especially make sure he is responsive to portions of the district suffering economically.

While their endorsed candidate wants to focus on the right ideas, Spencer already has them, and his political party has the legacy of seeking to enforce them, too. Two years ago, Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff tried to enact a statewide school choice bill so that residents in low-performing school districts could find a better education without bureaucratic hurdles preventing them.Two other candidates are competing to represent the district. Democrat Hector Serrano, a 26-year-old who formerly sat on the Los Angeles Harbor Area Planning Commission, and Republican businessman James Spencer.
How disappointing that the editorial spends all of one sentence describing James Spencer. Being a businessman is a significant undertaking in the state of California, on account of the rules and regulations making it harder to turn a profit and maintain a decent profit margin. Spencer has grown children doing well for themselves in spite of the circumstances. He has overcome financial hardships to make the most of a difficult economic climate made worse by a tax-and-spendthrift Democratic legislature.

At the end of the day, the Golden State is in a tarnished mess because of Democratic policies. The last person anyone should elect to represent them is another Democrat.

James Spencer

On December 9th, I am exhorting all residents of the SD-35, from San Pedro to Athens, from Compton to Lennox, to cast their vote for Republican James Spencer.

Friday, November 28, 2014

A responsible press is essential for an active, engaged, and effective citizenry.

Currently, two local newspapers report on Torrance politics: The Daily Breeze and Easy Reader.

The second paper was purchased by the owners of the Orange County Register, and the format has changed from a magazine style to a newspaper setting. THere is more news coverage, as well, and some would argue that the reporting is more balanced.

The latest controversy out of Torrance City Hall, the cancelation of the Gerber Emergency Medical Services Contract, has brought in concerns that one of the local papers is manifesting a distinct animosity toward the mayor.

In previous posts, I have been clearly critical of Mayor Pat Furey, a Democrat who is taking unoin money, who is sympathetic to their interests,which often collide with teh public interest. I would also share that his retort of "pension envy" from local residents did not ingratiate him toward me, either.

Yet in regards to whether pay-for-play influenced Mayor Furey's support for McCormick instead of Gerber, I do not believe it.

Torrance Mayor Pat Furey

Now, two reports on this matter, one from the Daily Breeze, the other rom Easy Reader, depict the bent of the papers toward the mayor.

But, as Furey pointed out after Linda Gottshall-Sayed, a former member of the city’s blue-ribbon ethics committee, called on him to recuse himself, those committees known as independent expenditures are perfectly legal thanks to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling this year that’s widely seen as a disaster by good governance advocates. And elected officials are free to vote on projects backed by those committees.

The case in question, Citizens United, determined the regulation of campaign donations into politics is a restriction on Free Speech. Regardless of one's feelings about the influence of money in campaigns, its effects are hit-and-miss at best. Unions spent ten-to-one against Kevin Faulconer earlier this year, and yet he won the San Diego mayor's race. Assemblyman David Hadley faced a union-bought, special-interest onslaught, outspending his private donors, yet he prevailed over the incumbent Democrat. Two years before, Independent Bill Bloomfield outspent incumbent Democrat Congressman Henry Waxman four-to-one, yet still Bloomfield lost. Money in itself cannot determine an election, nor should one conclude that independent expenditures are buying the mind and will of individual representatives.

Regarding Furey's ascendancy to the mayoralty, he can thank the infighting among Republican voters over he two other candidates, former Councilmembers Bill Sutherland and Tom Brewer. Very likely, if only one of those candidates had run for office, Furey would not be mayor today. Furthermore, good governance advocates comes in many shapes and sizes, and they still differ to what extent private donations and independent expenditures should influence local, state, or national election.

The Breeze editorial continues:

Furey did just that, casting the swing vote to award McCormick the contract, and he said he was unworried about any conflict of interest. After all, he explained to the council, these independent committees work separately and apart from a candidate’s campaign.

If it is true that he had not contact or influence with the Independent Expenditure, then his decision to cast a deciding vote is not suspect. Investigations are ongoing at this time whether Furey was connected. Nevertheless, to call Furey the deciding vote is not exactly accurate. Councilman Geoff Rizzo and I discussed this matter, and I could just as well have targeted him as the deciding vote, or Tim Goodrich, or even Kurt Weideman.

“This was no impropriety,” Furey said from the movable dais. “Although there can be a perception and there’s a local newspaper that wants to believe there’s a perception, there is no perception.” (Yes, he is referring to the Daily Breeze’s reporting.)
The really question arises: does the Daily Breeze want to suggest that perception? If so, such accusations require evidence, testimony, research, investigation. Dutiful readers of the Breeze are well-aware that the paper endorsed Tom Brewer for mayor. They remained critical of Furey even after winning the election.

McCormick was chosen from a pool of three potential contractors by a committee of city employees that included the Torrance Fire Department. The contract, which begins December 2, was an item of heated discussion within the community, fueled in part by an item published in Tuesday’s edition of the Daily Breeze, which linked donations made by both the ambulance company and the Torrance Firefighters Association to a political action committee that supported Furey’s re-election.

Here, the facts are stated, and the source of the controversy presented.

Furey confronted accusations of impropriety head-on, dismissing calls to recuse himself from voting, noting that the PAC in question had no contact with him or his campaign and announcing that, after earlier consulting with his legal team, he had decided that he would vote with a clear conscience.“It would not change my vote one iota one way or another,” Furey said of the support offered by the PAC supporting his campaign.
The mayor did not hide his views on the matter, and he had consulted with his lawyers about the continued propriety of voting on the contract.

Discussion began with a presentation by the city’s selection committee, outlining the selection process and detailing the criteria set for the three potential contractors that were considered: McCormick, Americare Ambulance Service and Care Ambulance Service. Gerber, despite holding the current contract with the city, was left out of the process for lacking independently audited finance records by the proposal submission deadline, as company vice-president Rebecca Gerber explained in her public comment.
All of this information I received from my discussion with Councilman Rizzo. Where was this information from the Daily Breeze? This article, published before The November City Council meeting, talked a little about the process which lead to the McCormick recommendation, but the suggestion of pay-for-play lingers.

Here are other sections from Easy Reader:

Councilman Kurt Weideman

But after comments from the public tapered off, Councilmembers Goodrich and Weideman came to the crux of the matter: that Gerber had defaulted on its contract with the city twice within the past two years, first in June 2013 and again in February 2014. Violations of the contract included a failure to have the required number of ambulances; failure to meet required response times; ambulances that failed vehicle maintenance inspections; and a failure to integrate with Torrance’s computer aided dispatch system.
No matter whether the prior reviews of Gerber were biased or genuine, the fact remains that Gerber had not had a financial audit prepared. Rizzo had informed me that they were given notice that their contract would not be renewed in August. They had the three months to get their financials in order.

It's nice to read an unbiased account of the council meeting. Perhaps the daily breeze should take a look at this kind of reporting.

So, the question emerges: is the Daily Breeze an integrated medium dedicated to providing the whole story, or more interested in attacking the current mayor, and sending out signals of purported impropriety?

Thursday, November 27, 2014

While there are diverse factions on the subject of life, marriage, gun ownership, and the environment the truth is that Republicans in California can facilitate free markets, free enterprise, free people, limited government, and local control focusing on key common sense reforms.

Abortion
This subject is a heated topic, and there are concerns that party leaders want to water down the platform. Now more than ever we should stand up for every life, and send the message to all Californians. Pro-choice elements within the GOP have their reasons for believing that abortion should remain a decision between the mother and the doctor.

No matter where one defines the beginning of life, and the proper domains of viability in the womb, Republicans, conservatives, libertarians all agree that abortions should not be tax-payer funded. Furthermore, the growing consensus among young voters and throughout the country, among men and women, is to forbid partial birth abortions. Loosening regulations to ease charities

Marriage
The advent of gay marriage had divided Democrats and Republicans across the country. Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich could not believe how quickly consensus on the issue had taken place. The consequences of gay marriage by legislation or court order, however, carry weighty implications which states, charities, and local businesses have had to take into account. Men and women of conscience who do not recognize gay marriage feel that their First Amendment rights are violated if forced to provide a service to a gay couple. Discussion in protecting proprietary rights of individual businesses, churches, and charities is essential. If live and let live are the order of the day, then this expectation falls on advocates of gay marriage as well as those who recognize the true status of marriage between one man and one woman.

Second Amendment

Gun control is bad policy. Statistics, historical accounts, and current research bear out the long-term societal consequences of restricting gun ownership to competent, law-abiding citizens. The latest court ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should force liberal state lawmakers to accept that the right to concealed-carry should not be abridged simply because an applicant does not indicate a compelling reason.

Environment
Cap and Trade is a broken reform which environmental activists have rejected. The evidence simply does not exist to justify comprehensive government intervention into carbon reduction. Instead of accommodating the argument, Republicans need to stand their ground on the facts. Republican candidates should expose the hypocrisy of liberals who demand that everyone else reduce their carbon footprint, yet they drive large cars and waste tons of otherwise recyclable materials.

Water
This issue connects with environmental concerns. Instead of investing in water storage tanks outside of the Bay Area, local authority in conjunction with private investment can bring down the costs of infrastructure and resources.Transportation
The roads in California are terrible, whether the freeways or the paved roads. The bureaucratic entanglements which increase costs without improving the pavement of our roads must be investigate and reduced.

Education
School choice should be on the lips of every Republican candidate running for office, whether locally or statewide. Africa-American voters care about a good education, and they demand the opportunity for their kids to go to the best school without waiting for the creeping reforms which never change anything.

Unions
40% of California Republicans are members of a union, and they support worker associations for their peers. Republicans do not have to promote right-to-work, but paycheck protection is a must. It is immoral as well as dysfunction to compel individuals to join a union, then force them to sit and watch their union leaders spend the money on candidates and causes without the individual employee's permission. Paycheck protection and recertification should be a top priority for Republicans, whether through the legislative process or through the court system. Strikes among public sector workers must be outlawed, as well.

Immigration
This topic has divided Republican voters from party leaders nationally as well as locally. There is no free society without a clearly defended border. Anyone who has been a victim of a crime should demand law enforcement along the Southern Border. Hispanic-Americans do not favor amnesty, no matter what the Democratic Party may claim. A secure border, welfare reform, and citizenship as a requirement to enroll in a public school must be top priorities for the California GOP.Pensions
Regardless of Governor Jerry Brown's affirmations that they have balanced the budget and provided more funding for pension liabilities, the wall of debt is standing tall, and is eating up city, county, and state resources which could go toward paying down long-term debt, fixing our roads, and paying our teachers a better wage. Rules on the number of pensions (one) which employees can earn, coupled with higher required investments, are a must. No Republican would disagree on these concerns.

Conclusion

Despite the lack of agreement on key issues, fiscal discipline and legislative scrutiny can assure that the guiding principles which unite Republicans can enable them to work together on commonsense reforms to create consensus and ensure long-standing recovery in the Golden State.

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Now that Mark DeSaulnier has replaced George Miller, the Seventh State Senate District in Easy Bay, Northern California is open. A special election will be held next year, and a strong Republican candidate will have a good chance of a pick-up to stop the tax-and-spend Democratic juggernaut in Sacramento.

This one Republican, Mark Meuser (Moy-zer), won the 2012 primary to challenge DeSaulnier on his lock-step support for every Democratic cause in Sacramento, which have impoverished education and business opportunities for East Bay Californians. Born in Huntington Beach, but raised in states all over the country, Meuser has diverse business, legal, and political experience. From serving as chief of staff for a Republican lawmaker in Missouri, to representing small businesses as a lawyer today, Meuser shared with me his goals for his district, and his plans to help his prospective constituents.

You ran against DeSaulnier in 2012. What did you learn from that race to help with your special election?

I know the district and what people are thinking in the district.

What are the issues most important to these East Bay voters?

Education. When it comes to education, there is a big portion of the district which is for charter schools, because they are tired of failing schools. There is a portion of the district which is really well off, and want the best schools for their kids. There are also regional issues within the district. Far east Contra Costa is a dead end district in transportation, and it's huge for them. They have to commute an hour and a half to get to work, two hours a day, one way. And that's just one way.

What about the BART transit strikes?

I am against BART strikes, I am against any government employee being allowed to strike. It's just not right. There are some city workers ready to strike in Concord. I said "this is not right,"" Any public employee who is a civil servant should not be allowed to strike.

When will the election take place?

DeSaulnier has not resigned yet, but we anticipate it will happen sometime in December. The election will take place next year, sometime in March.

I am the only Republican in the race. The Alameda and Contra Costa Central Committees are supporting me. They have not yet endorsed, but individuals have donated to my campaign.

Those two assembly candidates are your biggest challengers?

Those are the two names, and the reason is that both have opened up state senate candidate. Both were intending to run in 2016, when Desaulnier was termed out. Nobody else has opened up a 2016 account, besides myself, There are only three people serious about the race at this point.

Susan and I are actively fundraising.What other issues are you concerned about?

Jobs.

What are your views on the Second Amendment? What did you think of the recent Ninth Circuit Court decision expanding concealed carry permits to California residents?

I think the 9th Circuit hit the nail on the head. They are following the case law established in DC, by the Heller decision. The Second Amendment protects the rights of the people, which the Bill of the Rights is designed to protect.

What is your stance on abortion?

Issue of abortion is a very toxic issues which everyone has an opinion about, but has not been an issue that the legislature has taken up in years. It is an issue which the media uses to divide the people. What my position is on the abortion issue will not change the problem with our underperforming schools, the disrepair of our roads, or fix the broken pension system that could soon bankrupt our state.What are your thoughts about a law recently passed which would permit non-physicians to conduct abortions?I found it humorous that the same people who say we need safe access to abortions now promote a concept that we need to allow nurses to be allowed to do abortions, Nurses who have not gone through all the years of medial training and residency requirements that a doctor has had to go through.You would not go to a nurse and expect the nurse to do brain surgery on you. Nurses should not be doing surgery procedures on patients. It just does not make any sense at all.

Same-sex marriage:

My issue on same-sex marriage is that this problem has been created by the government. For centuries upon centuries, the intuition of marriage was a religious one. When our country began, it was fully religious institution. With the advent of the IRS and income taxes, and the government, using taxes to promote families, it created a problem that we are facing today, in that government has co-opted something that really was in the religious scheme of things. It has created a problem that never had to be created.

﻿

Mark Meuser

What did you learn from your experience as a chief of staff for a legislator in Missouri?

My legislator had been carrying workers' comp reform for years. My job was to draft and usher through that workers' comp bill to passage. Rather than going right to the business community, I talked to all the concerned partners, I figure that rather than just write a bill that was one sided, I wanted to understand everybody's concern. I demonstrated my ability to listen to all sides, and think outside the box, that all sides could, to take care of as many problems as were there.This issue will raise its ugly head again in California. We have the highest workers comp rates in the nation. I just saw an article in the Sacramento Bee about this.

What specific red tape are you interested in cutting?Schools don't have enough money to educate our kids. We need to really take a serious look how much we spend on middle management government bureaucratic administration. The more we reduce Sacramento’s bureaucratic influence over our school districts the more money goes to the teacher and offers the student the same world-class education that we gave back in the 1960s and 1970s.

Do unions play a role in the poor education our kids are receiving?

I complete support the Vergara decision. Teachers unions are completely against it. I understand why they're against it. I think the laws that were challenged were unreasonable.I agree with the judge that these laws were unconstitutional, especially as they were applied, and how they have affected lower income neighborhoods.

Under the old system before the Vergara decision, a school district couldn't fire the bad teacher, without spending hundreds of thousands of dollars. Recently, there was a bad teacher in Los Angeles who the school decided not to terminate because of the cost. Now they are forced to pay 139 million in a settlement. Where is the money coming out of? Our student's education. That is money we cannot spend on our kids.

Campaign donors?

In the first week, we raised $20,000 from a hundred donors. Right now, it' the support of We the People. That's who we need representing us in Sacramento. We the People have very few representatives who are interested in the best of the people.

What would be the first law, bill that you would propose? What would be a priority?

A Bill in regards to education reform would be my focus -- eliminate bureaucracy coming out of Sacramento. We already are spending a lot of money getting into mid-level management.

What about Prop 13?

I support Prop 13 in its entirety. Government needs to learn to start cutting its program that it can no longer afford. Prop 13 forces government to leave within its means, the way that you and I do. We have only so much money coming our way. Government has been getting greedy. Pension problems.Was there anything else you wanted to talk about?

The only thing we did not talk about is pensions. My only point in pensions is that we keep going down the path we are going, we are going to reach a point where we can't fulfill the promises we made to people. We have to do serious pension reforms, not just say were going to do but actually do some. There's some tough decisions that will have to be made.

After the controversial four-three vote in favor of the McCormick ambulance contract, I contacted Geoff Rizzo, one of the council members who voted in favor of replacing Gerber Ambulance with a new emergency medical provider.

He offered to sit down with me a discuss the matter. We ended up talking for three hours, and his take on the issue was enlightening on many levels. I was really impressed that he took the time to explain the ins and outs of his decision, and the complications -- legal, financial, and political -- behind the decision.

Why did you vote for the McCormack Contract?

Based on the evidence I had at hand, what was on the agenda, were we voting for a new ambulance contract. Yes, the campaign and politics muddied the waters, clouded the issue. What we had was a business decision. What was in the best interests of the citizens of this community?We had a situation where Gerber Ambulance Service served two notices of default on under the contract. There was a default in 2013. The council has nothing to do with the administration of the contract. My understanding was based on the evidence in front of me.In the2013 letter of default sent to Gerber, some of those issues under the letter were faulty equipment, failure to have interface computer-aided dispatch system. The City has its own for the fire department. Under the terms of contract, Gerber was suppose to have established an interface between the two systems, so that the two cad systems could talk to each other, so that every one would know what was going on. The purpose was got get real time stamps.

Real time stamps would allow the city to determine if the ambulance service was answering calls in an efficient and timely manner, and improving on their times.The equipment issues included units not available, bald tires, paramedics had determined that defective brakes on one of the ambulance units. I can't give you specifics. These deficiencies were reported by the Torrance Fire Department, since Torrance Fire evaluates contractor on their performance.

I mentioned concerns from Torrance community members that the Torrance Fire Department was trying to make emergency medical response services an in-house department. Rizzo pointed out that there has been discussions about this change, but there are many service models which the city of Torrance is looking into.

Is the McCormick contract going to cost the city or save the city money?

This switch is revenue neutral. We are not making or losing money.How did the city council end up with McCormick?
Rizzo detailed a lengthy bidding process, which Councilwoman Ashcraft confirmed for me.

The city released requests for proposal to thirty-two ambulance companies, drawing from a list provided by the LA County Health department. Of the thirty-two contacted, only four responded.

﻿﻿﻿

Heidi Ashcraft

Councilwoman Ashcraft asked "why only four?" at the meeting, Rizzo pointed out in our conversation.

Most of the ambulance providers contacted did not have emergency services. Of the four, Gerber was disqualified because they did not provide audited financial statements. This part of the proposal was crucial to the council's final decision, Rizzo told me, because they needed to know that Torrance would be working with a solvent company, and would not have to scurry around for another provider if the company suddenly went out of business.

The three companies which remained candidates for the city contract were:
AmeriCare: has 18 years of experience, corporation founded in 1996, still owns 100% serves(Carson)

Care -- 45 years of experience, in 2010 acquired and became subsidiary (Orange)

McCormack (WestMed) -- 50 years, CEO is Near Torrance,
Rizzo then explained to me the rating process for the three remaining companies

We were not on the evaluation committee. They are from city staff: representatives from the city financial, communications (CIT), and two reps from the fire department: EMS Coordinator, Senior Admin analyst.

I was skeptical of the rating process, since two of the individuals involved were connected to the Fire Department. Rizzo explained to me that the EMS coordinator and the senior analyst are part of two different bargaining units, as well as the finance and communications representative on the evaluation committee. He was not convinced that Mayor Furey was involved in any improprieties or influence on this contract.

Mayor Pat Furey

Documents provided are reviewed and scored independently on various categories. I would have to go back and look at the record to give you details. In the council items, it will show some of the scoring, the various aspects of the proposal. Each of the raters will give an independent score, then take the average of the four scores. McCormack had the best score.

Regarding the political controversies surrounding the McCormick bid, Rizzo reminded me that he had received no campaign contributions from Gerber or McCormick, while other members on the city council had received donations from Gerber. If campaign donations had served as the final arbiter for who could vote, Rizzo would have been the only member voting on the contract.

I go no money from Gerber or McCormack. Did I have conservations with Gerber and McCormack prior to the hearing? Yes.
He then explained what would have happened if the council voted down McCormick:Let's say we vote no, and we extend the Gerber contract for six months. What if because of the deficiencies listed in the default letters, someone is injured or killed? What is the exposure of the city of Torrance for a lawsuit, knowing full well that there were performance issues with contractor?

For Rizzo, liability concerns were a major factor in choosing McCormick.

It's a twelve month contract. We don't want to get stuck with the same issues. We need this vital service. Gerber had issues, was deficient in its contract. To have Gerber continue to provide would have opened us to huge liability. I had agonized over the decision. We got the packages on Friday, November the 15th for reviewing, We received supplemental info on Monday. Much of the supplemental to solidify questions.

Even when the city sent advanced notice to Gerber that Torrance was not extending their contract, the company did nothing to changer their operations. They had at least three months before the November vote to get their financials audit in order, too. The fact that Gerber has a recorded history of default, whether valid or not, would have opened the city of Torrance to greater liability, too.

Our extended discussion about the contract change revealed to me the conflicts inherent in the decision-making process for city council members. Gerber was a city agency, well-known to the community, had served Torrance for nearly thirty years. It was an emotional night when the city council chose a different emergency provider, and by a slim vote.

Then the local press reports allegations of pay-for-play, indicating the independent expenditures on behalf of Pat Furey. Insinuations from the latest editorial suggest a personal rivalry between the Daily Breeze and the mayor. Other reports have informed me that the mayor will sue the newspaper for defamation very soon.

Having discussed the matter with Rizzo, I understand why he wanted to take the time to explain at length his decision-making process. From all the paperwork he had to read, to the discussions with other council members and city leaders, to the potential consequences of continuing with Gerber, Rizzo confided that there were a number of issues to factor in when voting for McCormick for a twelve-month contract.

As a constituent, I told Rizzo that the city needs to invest in a different evaluation process for current emergency providers, to ensure that city councils receive an independent review for current and future providers. He agreed with me, and affirmed that the council would be looking into that matter later on.

Saturday, November 22, 2014

In the latest edition of The McLaughlin Group, the guest speakers commented on the growing revelations of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber's damning comments about the secrecy, deception, and outright fraud from the Democratic Congress and President Obama to pass the Affordable Care Act.

Architect (Confidence Man) Jonathan Gruber

The episode featured the first of many revelatory quotes from Gruber:

This bill was written in a tortured way so that the CBO wouldn't score the individual mandate as taxes. If the CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. So, it was written to do that. In terms of subsidies, if you wrote a law that said: "Healthy people are going to pay in, and sick people get money", it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. Basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter, or whatever, but basically that was really critical to getting the bill to pass.What Gruber said very simply is: "We put one over on the stupid Americans."And that's what a lot of Americans believe. They didn't understand it. Pelosi said: "We gotta pass it to see what's in it." And this is extraordinarily damaging both to the Obama program and to the President himself.
Then Buchanan declared:

This guy Gruber is an extract of pure liberalism, a liberal racketeer. One of these guys is brought in with a great moral compass, then he enriches himself.
Buchanan has summed up the Democratic elite program with wit and aplomb.

While politicians on the Left claim to care about the poor and and disenfranchises, they are really interested in enriching themselves. This tacit knowledge is fully public, evident, inescapable.

Gruber has not only brought down President Obama's fraudulence further, but has added strength to the new Supreme Court case challenging Obamacare subsidies for federal health exchanges.

Charlie Munger, Jr. is heavily invested in Republican assembly, state senate, and sometimes Congressional races. California Watch rates the Silicon Valley political activist #3 in terms of influence and financing in Golden State politics. According to their report, up to 2011, he has enjoyed a 99% success rate with his funding: better than the Law Offices of Larry H. Parker.

Charlie Munger, Jr.

When candidates get Munger money, then know that someone important is fighting for them.

I have read negative concerns regarding his overindulgence in Republican vs. Republican contests. He also took heat from the left for opposing Governor Brown's Prop 30 and promoting union restrictions in Prop 32. Other voices have suggested that he has the right idea, his heart is in the right place, but he is taking bad advice, which includes supporting candidates and causes to moderate, or water down the party platform.

In the next two weeks, Munger can dispel these rumors. On December 9th, the Secretary of State has called for a special election to replace convicted felon Roderick Wright in the 35th State Senate District.

Of the four candidates running for office, including incumbent Democrat Isadore Hall (D-Compton), there is only one Republican: James Spencer.

A candidate who ran for office in 2004, Spencer threw his hat in the rang this time, standing on a platform of good schools through choice, and economic growth through opportunities and private investment. He defends the United States Constitution, conservative on social and fiscal issues.

The Republican Party needs rebranding, outreach, and stronger ground game in otherwise heavily Democratic regions, like South Los Angeles and the Harbor region, two major sections of the 3th State Senate District.

While the likelihood of a Republican upset seems quite unlikely in this district (Democratic registration 61% vs. 19% GOP), the shifting ideological demographics may afford a Republican candidate the opportunity to capitalize on the Democratic Party's routine failures to deliver more jobs, better schools, and safer streets to black communities in the region. Spencer shared all these points with me an interview, and will take this message to the senate district with the little time remaining.

James Spencer

Another website, CalWatchDog.org, was less optimistic about Spencer's chances:

And on Dec. 9, an election will be held to replace Democratic state Sen. Rod Wright in Senate District 35. He resigned after being convicted in a corruption scandal. If necessary, a Feb. 10, 2015 runoff will be held. According to Ballotpedia, “Louis L. Dominguez (D), Isadore Hall, III (D), Hector Serrano (D) and James Spencer (R) will face off.” As Wright got 76.5 percent of the vote to 23.5 percent for Republican Charlotte A. Svolos in the 2012 election, one of the Democrats is almost assured of victory, meaning this race also won’t change the party makeup of the Senate.

However, there is nothing wrong with vetting the area with a strong candidate. The President's executive amnesty is provoking outrage with black South LA residents, and the Democratic Party's descent into social illiberalism (gay marriage, abortion on demand, resistance to school choice) has only alienated black voters, giving the otherwise loyal voting bloc more reasons to feel taken for granted, and thus being taken.

Charlie Munger, Jr. along and the California Republican Party has a chance to make stronger inroads into otherwise distanced communities. Munger's infusion of independent expenditure cash could help lingering Republican operations in the region gain strength and step off into future contests local as well as district-wide.

Will Munger take advantage of this opportunity? At the very least, he should.

The well was already poisoned. Republicans made a decision early on to oppose virtually everything this President did.
First of all, the Constitution is very clear about the President's role in the federal framework:

Article. 2 // Section. 1.The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
The Constitution is inconspicuously silent, or rather brief on the powers of the President. Execution of the law means nothing more (and nothing less) than enforcement of the law. Those laws come from Congress, and the enumerated powers of Congress are provided in Article 1. Congress is designated power, and the President responds to their direction.

There is a role of persuasion of recommendation granted to the President:Article. 2 // Section. 3.He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;

Yet Clift disparages the Republicans in Congress because they oppose everything that the President has done. Frankly, the President should not be doing anything unless the Congress empowers him to. Clift has reversed the proper constitutional order. Congress, whether Democrat or Republican controlled, does not respond to the President, but rather establishes what the President may do. In effect, they should be opposing everything the President does which steps outside of the bounds of federal law.

Now, if they disagree with him on that, they might [say]: "We might not confirm an attorney general, we're not going to confirm any of your appointments. We're not going to do anything on these other issues. It's like a third grader's response: stamping your feet, and holding your breath. You think the country's going to reward that? I hope not.
From the founding of the country and the Constitutions, the Framers instituted a government designed precisely to stall, to delay, and to invite deliberate (slow and well-conceived) government action.

From "third grader" James Madison:

﻿﻿

James Madison

An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.

Thomas Jefferson

One third grader writing to another third grader, Thomas Jefferson:

The principle of the Constitution is that of a separation of legislative, Executive and Judiciary functions, except in cases specified. If this principle be not expressed in direct terms, it is clearly the spirit of the Constitution, and it ought to be so commented and acted on by every friend of free government.

Alexander Hamilton

Yet another third grader, Alexander Hamilton, describing the benefit of the President's veto:

The injury which may possibly be done by defeating a few good laws, will be amply compensated by the advantage of preventing a number of bad ones.

The Framers were not interested in an activist federal government, but a restrained one. The argument which shames Congress for blocking the President ignores the fact that the government was never in the business of expansion, but rather retention of our rights and liberties, followed by diffusion of responsibilities to the states and the people (Article 10 of the Bill of Rights).

Clift then echoed the sentiment of conservatives George Will and Tom Rogan:

They only will argue with him [The President] on procedure. They won't argue with him on the substance of what he has done. What he has done is correct. It will stand up in the courts.

The Congress have every right and necessity to dispute President Obama's actions on the grounds of procedure, for his role is enacting, enforcing, executing the laws of the land. There is nothing for him to do, since Congress did not pass legislation. Despite the US Senate's bipartisan legislation in 2013, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, responding to the heart-beat of the American people, have continued to reject amnesty.

That is the federal system of government laid out in the Constitution. Like many progressives, Clift has an apparent, yet unannounced disdain for the United States' uniting charter, yet her disregard does not mitigate the final authority, the supremacy of the charter over laws state and federal, as well as the aberrant will of the current chief executive.

For all her condescension toward the Republicans' obstruction, Clift herself sounds like a third grader, because of her impoverished, unjustified ignorance of the United States Constitution as a restriction on power, both the President and the Congress. While she characterizes Congressional resistance as immature power plays, Congress is in fact manifesting its mature responsibilities as guardians of the rights and powers of the states and the people.

First, Washington Post syndicated columnist George Will offered the following about Obama's executive amnesty, otherwise known as "Obamnesty":

George Will

The policies are defensible, the process is execrable.
President Obama wants to extend citizenship to illegal immigrants, individuals who broke the law entering the country, while ignoring the integrity and effort of millions of legal residents who played by the rules? No, such a move is indefensible, but the process of ignoring Congress and discriminating federal law is execrable. In prior episodes of Fox News Sunday, Will characterized the thousands of illegal immigrant minors as benign migrants with teddy bears. Why he defies recognizing the long-term consequences of unprotected borders and unenforced federal statutes remains disconcerting. Still, he offered an opinion, one which reflects poor fundamental principles.

Tom Rogan

Then National Review Editor Tom Rogan contributed on the McLaughlin Group the following:

It's executive overreach to a huge degree. Whether the President's policy is right, it's not right in procedure. I think it's a great disservice, not just to the executive branch and the Presidency, and this president himself, but also to the notion of American law. We have to remember, this is a Harvard Law graduate who has done this in such a disdainful way. It has poisoned the well, and that is a deep shame.
President Obama has extended executive amnesty not just to a significant cohort of young illegal immigrants, brought to this country by their parents, but he has also extended provisional permission (with permits) to the illegal parents, as well as the illegal parents whose children are living here legally.

He has no authority to do this.

Where one can take greater offense, however, is that the very idea of extending permits, green cards, and Social Security cards to illegal immigrants is a good idea.

No, the proper course would begin with securing the border. Security does not require a fence, but the requisite number of troops and resources, along with buildings to house then remove illegal immigrants. Pat Buchanan made a point about the frustration not just of conservatives, but with Middle America because their own President will not enforce the laws on the books, and secure the border. This executive fiat moves Middle America from frustration to outrage. Three of the panelists, including the more liberal Mort Zuckerman concluded that this executive measures is a big mistake which will hurt President Obama and the Democratic Party in the future.

The McLaughlin assessment is sound and certain. When the President defies popular opinion on reasonable policies, like border security and energy expansion, he has done himself and his party a grave disservice. While the discussion on the McLaughlin group submitted that this measure will divide the Republican Party, the manifest displeasure of this measure will more likely unify their cause. Even the Chamber of Commerce branch of the GOP would rather see the President marginalized, even though they pursued a similar outcome for cheap labor.

Obamnesty is a bad idea, and no implementation could justify it, or make it any worse.

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Republicans did remarkably well in 2014. They took back the US Senate, by wider than expected margins. They also expanded their majority in the House. They also won a net three governor's races: Arkansas, Illinois, Maryland, and Massachusetts.

I said a net of three of course, because Republicans lost one governor's seat: Pennsylvania.

Former Governor Tom Corbett

In a prior post, I outlined all the failures of Governor Tom Corbett, including his pandering to unions, his inaction on right-to-work, his openness to raising taxes, and his incapacity to work with commanding majorities in the state legislature.

While Pennsylvania voters rejected Corbett, they did not reject Republican policies. The federal Congressional delegation still retains thirteen seats to five Democrats, as well.

What about the Harrisburg state legislature?

Samuel Smith, Speaker of the PA House

On November 3rd, Republicans held the state house 111-91, with one vacancy: a decent majority. After the election, even though Democrat Tom Wolf defeated Corbett, Republicans gained eight seats, 119-84. Wolf does not have a mandate to govern like a liberal. Pennsylvanians signaled a drive for reforms, not more of the same.

Joseph Scarnati, President Pro Tem

Dominic Pileggi, Senate Floor Leader

In the state senate, Republicans held the majority before election day 27-22, with one vacancy. After voting, Republicans expanded their majority 30-20, including the vacancy.

So, Republican operatives should learn from Corbett's mistake: stay true to your party's platform, enact the reforms which you and your party have pledged to enforce, and work with your partisan peers to accomplish as much as possible.

﻿

US Senator Pat Toomey

These election results portend better outcomes for incumbent Republican US Senator Pat Toomey, who may not face a primary challenge, but will find a strong Democratic push in 2016 for them get back a seat which they had lost in 2010. Early polling suggests that Toomey can do well against any potential Democratic challenger, but national currents make as much a difference as anything else.

Of course, a strong statewide Pennsylvania Republican offensive which can get things done in Harrisburg, even with a liberal Democratic governor, will help seal Toomey's win (or determine his loss).

But winning may have been the easy part. Ahead of the York County Democrat is the task of pushing an ambitious platform through a Republican-controlled legislature, while inheriting a major deficit and ballooning public pension system costs.
Then

Like Corbett, the challenges facing Wolf are significant: He will face a newly strengthened Republican majorities in both the House and Senate that don't share many aspects of his agenda.
Severe financial problems have not been resolved, and a wider Republican legislature will push back against tax increases. Marijuana legalization may find some support, and a shale tax may be up for discussion. A fractured legislative session may hurt Toomey's chances, or help. Governor-elect Wolf's political accomplishments in conservative York County may lean him toward right-leaning compromise, as well.

So, even though Republicans lost one governor seat in 2014, their policies were not rejected, and the reform-minded agenda of Tea Party conservatives remains a strong feature of Pennsylvania politics.

Charlie Munger Jr. likes to spend his money. He likes to spread it around for Republican candidates in the state of California. Lately, I have been reading about his interesting, if not quixotic financial exploits on "The Munger Games".

The man is apparently wasting his patrimony on acrimonious Republican vs. Republican contests. Why invest in a race where Republicans are certain to win, only to ignore close contests where a GOP needed that extra boost to carry over? Here is a list of five close Assembly races. Here's a list of close Congressional races where the Bow-Tied One gave. . .not enough (if anything at all).

﻿

This picture says it all (Munger Games)

Why is he trying to get rid of incumbents in seats which Republicans are guaranteed to win? Why won't he help his party gain seats in Congress?

Here's a thought. . .

The way the California Republican Party works, every candidate who runs for office and survives the primary becomes a delegate to the next CA GOP convention. The higher one's voter percentage, the more delegates a candidate can appoint to attend and vote at the convention.

Perhaps the Bow-Tied One is influencing these races so that he can pull strings with the candidate and his or her potential delegate appointees.

"I helped you out, now you help me out."

Consider openly gay Carl DeMaio. Yes, he lost to Scott Peters, and he took down millions of dollars with him. The San Diego Republican Party backed this horse, even though he was controversial due to his diverse stance on a number of issues.

Yet as a Munger-backed candidate, and coming within a few thousand votes of winning, he can bring with him five to eight delegates to the next California Republican Party convention. Now the left-leaning Republican can vote on watering down the state party platform.

Border security? Now let's root for amnesty.

Life begins at conception, deserves our protection? With Munger-influenced delegates, they will say pro-choice is a principled stance (except for the baby, but who cares what he or she thinks, right?)

Marriage? Gays can marry, too. One view of MassResistance.org documentary, and anyone with sense can see where state-imposed gay marriage can take a state, or this country. With Munger money on their minds, delegates won't care, and will have no problem with societal redefinition of marriage.

Guns? Who needs the Second Amendment! Munger delegates will also say: "Go with gun-control from now on."

When viewing Munger's eerie investments in certain campaigns in 2014, one sees an interesting pattern. The heir-physicist isn't handing out all this money to central committees, state county party leaders, and moderate candidates out of the goodness of is heart, now, is he?

Munger the Moderate, watering down the California Republican Party platform, is he trying to pay for then placate candidates, their potential delegates, and thus steer the party platform to the left? Makes perfect sense in a sinister sort of way. . .